“If you put the murder of the president of the United States at one end of the scale, and you put that waif Oswald on the other end, it just doesn’t balance,” he said. “And you want to put something on Oswald’s side to make it balance. A conspiracy would do that beautifully. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatever of that.”
— William Manchester to the New York Times, 1999.
This formulation is condescending–if you don’t agree with the official story your thinking is controlled by emotional need, not rational thought–but influential.
I’m looking for comments that
1) are no longer than Manchester’s quote (ie, 61 words).
2) cite other expressions of this thought.
Children hear different than Adults.They can hear lower pitched sounds.That’s why Mary Willis (the little girl in red)is the only one who turns.It’s also why Mr.Newman describes the shots as Bangs but his son hears Pops.Listen to a gun with a suppressor and you will know why.
E.HOward Hunt fired a decoy shot with a handgun on the Knoll.At the same time Jean Souetre using an excellent Rifle equipped with Scope and Suppressor firing from a position 25′ from the south side of the Triple Overpass on the bushy slope below the Postal parking lot killed Kennedy with a bullet that entered at his right forehead and exited behind his right ear.It’s a simple trick of misdirection which fooled the people in Dealy Plaza and some people for 51 years.Thank you Sherry Fiester for the truth.I was at Dealy Plaza in 2009.I told the people paying for Badgeman photos that the Shot was from the other side of the street but they laughed preferring to think a 6′ 6″ man in a police uniform could turn himself invisible.Thanks again Sherry.Me and you can laugh last because you are right.
That’s not exactly true. You need to fact check. The Marine Corps determined Oswald to be a sharpshooter.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/anderson1.htm
Reply
Jonathan
April 21, 2013 at 11:07 am
C’mon, Paul. The material to which you link shows LHO scored (with an M-1) 212 (sharpshooter) in 1956 and 191 (marksman) in 1959.
I thank you for providing the link but not for your shading of the information it provides.
Jonathan, I provided the document for information. Anybody can read it. I shaded nothing. I believe the difference between 1956 and 1959 was Oswald’s motivation.
I sure do miss the Evans Farm Inn.
A CIA Favorite – Evans Farm Inn: http://books.google.com/books?id=dN_8vd3fj1oC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=Evans+Farm+Inn+CIA&source=bl&ots=_D24NB7TS7&sig=kzRwCceVlm7KlHSYriPllrWE3Ps&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yKF0UaGwOKvs2AWGk4GoBQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Evans%20Farm%20Inn%20CIA&f=false
I bet if you presented the historical record of 49 years of JFK research, that the majority of today’s CIA analysts would conclude that the government murdered John Kennedy and covered it up.
We need to reach a point in our country where our nation’s leaders openly admit that. Surely Obama with his left wing history recognizes this fact.
Sidenote: Lyndon Johnson was one of handful of the early congressional overseers of the newly created CIA in the 1950’s.
Great place for real American food-and bone dry Beefeaters Gibsons.
And if you left early enough you might see Ethel at Someplace Special in the neighborhood.
Evans Farm Inn. A McLean VA place. They were famous for their Washington spoon bread. I miss Fairfax County when it still had TREES. But I don’t miss the blue laws or the segregated schools. Photon, you’re officially an OLD MAN.
It still has trees. I saw a couple in Burke Lake Park .
Robert,
I’d be happy if CIA were reduced to just gathering and analyzing intelligence, the way Harry Truman intended it to do. We gave that bunch of bureaucrats WAY too much power when we let them weasel their way into doing slimy regime changes and covert ops. Talk about Big Brother. And with NSA over in MD, doing a lot of the gathering, we could strip CIA down to just analysis, as far as I’m concerned. Like all bureaucracies, they’d fight tooth and nail to keep what they have, but if the public rose up and demanded change, maybe we could get it.
I’m convinced that when we let CIA go bumping off foreign leaders we created a rogue pit bull to “safeguard” our citizens, and this ‘dog’ turned on it’s ‘owner’ in 1963, just as a nasty pit bull could do if not trained properly, on it’s family members.
Til Hazel wasn’t able to get at the floodplains or the few parks. Hell, not even sacred Civil War battlefields are exempt. Ever tried retracing Stonewall Jackson’s thrust at Pope’s forces?
Fairfax County is just like New Jersey now. A big sprawling traffic mess.
Well, he got to almost everything else. I must not speak ill of him- I have had to deal with his son on projects. They could put a townhouse up on a gravestone-oops, I think that they already have.
This is way off topic, Photon. But my feeling is, Til represents the old conservative forces of reactionary boneheadedness that folks like George Lardner, Jr. represent when defending CIA and denying that they had a big hand in assassinating President Kennedy. In Til’s case, it’s paving over trees so that more cars can choke the DC Metro Area skies. In Lardner’s case, it’s paving over the truth of what really happened in Dallas in 1963. When these old men are all gone, there’s going to be changes in how people view things. You can take that to the bank.
The Hazel family has taken a lot to the bank. And very often. But unless you are claiming that JFK was shot with a nail gun I can’t see how you can relate anything about the assassination to Til or any of his projects.
It’s a mindset, Photon. The mindset of your pals at Evans Farm Inn is dying off with each heart attack, each stroke, each cancer related death. Younger people are much more open to accepting the idea that JFK was assassinated by more than one gunman. Just as they are less likely to deny global warming, gay marriage, and the idea that our government isn’t always telling us the truth. I think you read my analogy too literally. Maybe you should put the sauce down and stay focussed, okay?
What could climate change or gay marriage have to do with a homicide that took place 50 years ago? Even if 100% of people below 30 believed that JFK was assassinated by 3 left handed Corsican pickpockets hanging by duct tape from 3 different locations firing simultaneously doesn’t make it true.
You’re not really a dumb blonde, you just play one online, right, Photon?
You know exactly what I’m talking about. Anyway, even if 100% of the former spoon bread eaters from Evans Farm Inn said that the JFK assassination “magic bullet” fairy tale was unassailable, it wouldn’t make it the truth. You can’t even prove that it works. It’s a joke.
I haven’t been a blonde since I divorced my first husband.
Only your hairdresser knows for sure, right?
Thank you for your service to our country Photon. Just to reciprocate, I served with the 82nd Airborne and 5th Special Forces, and worked on the coordination of several Presidential motorcades with the Secret Service. I also worked in the U.S. House and Senate. As Americans we are all on the same team and all benefit by heeding the words of a great man that “civility is not a sign of weakness.”
I am a retired Company analyst.
I’m disappointed, but not surprised that photon has not shared his, or her, qualifications. One can only conclude they are non-existent. I still do find his, or her comments, helpful as responding to a devil’s advocate hones ones skills and fosters a higher level of patience and conviction in ones argument. I would however point out to others that it is a fools errand to attempt to engage, and thus hope to enlighten, cherry pickers who intentionally ignore inconvienent facts. Life is just to precious to squander on individuals who delight in pushing bruises, and who, like most internet trolls, more likely than not, still live in their parents basement. Don’t play their game, ignore them and they will move on.
Why must virtually every thread be hi jacked from Mr. Morleys intent?
Here you go: a comment in 61 words, from a court certified expert qualified to make the comment.
When examining targets to determine a projectile’s direction of travel, five techniques are applied: beveling, fracture sequencing, blood spatter, bullet fragment patterns, and target movement. Current research indicates beveling is unreliable. The four remaining forensic techniques prove a shot from the front—with a level of certainty that meets the evidentiary standard to support a criminal conspiracy conviction in today’s courtroom.
What research in beveling? Aside from reportable cases that are evidence of the rarity of atypical beveling?
Did you read the autopsy report? Do you need an autopsy report to reach your conclusions? Exactly what does the presence of adrenal insufficiency imply for wound interpretation?
Beveling is inconclusive, and I am not restricting that to rare atypical beveling. Here is the research and publications used in that conclusion:
Quatrehommea, Gérald, & Iscan, M. Yasar. (1998). Analysis of beveling in gunshot entrance wounds. Forensic Science International, 93(1), 45–60.
Coe, Joe I. (1982). External beveling of entrance wounds by handguns. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 3(3), 215–219.
Prahalow, Joseph. (2010). Forensic Pathology for Police, Death Investigators, Attorneys and Forensic Scientist. New York: Humana Press
Adams, Bradley J. (2006). Forensic Anthropology. New York: Infobase Publishing
Levy, Angela D., & Harcke, H. Theodore. (2008). Essentials of Forensic Imaging: A Text-Atlas. Florida: CRC Press.
Yes, I have read the autopsy report, and yes obviously one must consider ALL available information. And adrenal insufficiency has no bearing on trajectory analysis.
You are making statements based on outdated, unreliable information, therefore your conclusions can be proven erroneous.
Forensic science has proven the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy as the head shot came from in front of the President.
According to Cyril Wecht from what direction did the shots that hit Kennedy come from?
Do your beveling sources deal with high veloity rifle rounds or hand gun rounds? You brought up wound characteristics-does adrenal insufficiency affect wound appearance?
I do not speak for Dr. Wecht, however he has asked me to present this information at his conference in October. Cited sources addressed beveling in both high high velocity and handgun ammunition. Adrenal insufficiency does not affect wound appearance in head wounds.
That’s not what you said earlier this year.
Sherry has written a wonderful book. I suggest all interested in the ballistics of the case read it.
^ Yes.
Sherry, you obviously disagree with the other experts:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27705829/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/tech-puts-jfk-conspiracy-theories-rest/
Paul, I do agree with other experts.
A close look at the Discovery Channel’s analysis methods reveal a subtle bias, as opposed to their implied scientific neutrality; an inaccurate replication of evidence to be examined by experts; and the manipulation of experts to arrive at conclusions designed to support preconceived opinions.
I want to respond fully but the reply comment length suggests it needs to be on another thread, or perhaps an article. I will email Jeff asking how he wants to handle it.
Ms. Fiester, I just want to thank you and Mr. Morley for all your efforts in bringing to light the treason that was committed in Dallas in 1963. RFK once said, “moral courage is a rarer commodity that courage in battle,” both of you, and those who still fight this good fight, epitomize such courage.
As an aside, I look forward to buying your book, but would like to share my thoughts as to where I firmly believe the front shots came from based on my professional opinion and my recent visit to Dallas. The single best location in front was not at the mid point of the grassy knoll fence, but further to the west where the overpass intersects with the knoll fence. There is a perfect concealed parapet in the storm drain at that point which I understand is large enough for someone to escape underground to another concealed location. I think it would be very interesting to see the underground 1963 blueprints for that drain.
That is, of course sheer speculation, but I have always found it interesting that that location is always swiftly dismissed by the mainstream media and never mentioned again despite the facts that are well publicized photos of the crowd converging on that exact spot. I also found it to be interesting that in a fairly recent “documentary” in which Gary Mack participated, that that particular spot was quickly derided and spoken of no more.
Why would any reconstruction use a “follow-up car with four standing SS agents”? Why not just have a reconstruction of the whole motorcade? Are you claiming that unless the reconstruction reproduced every aspect of the shooting on Nov. 22 it could not be valid? Jonathan, you claimed that you could practice law in four states, yet you claimed that criminal trials can return verdicts of “innocent”-which is not correct and is a statement no attorney would make. It goes to your credibility.
See JFK and the Unspeakable pp. 228-235 (on the Nov. 9 “Oswald” letter to the Soviet Embassy, linking Oswald to Kostikov). The Soviets returned the letter to the US authorities in December 1963 and considered it a crude forgery trying to link them to the assassination. This is prima facie evidence of a plot the frame Oswald and the USSR for the crime.
As I look at the comments this morning, I count 10 separate threads. By my count, photon has commented in 8 of the threads. By my estimation, his comments aim to disrupt.
His comments are of two basic types: (a) those that merely snipe, and (b) those that purport to be substantive.
Example 1: “Well, it is good to see you admit it.” In response to a quote posted by Robert Morrow. A disparaging snipe.
Example 2: “And yet you claim that jury trials in this country find defendents “innocent”.” In response to a post of mine about the nature of evidence. A non-sequitur. It goes to credibility and would be ridiculed on a lawyers blog. But on this blog, photon knows his non seqitur may well gain traction.
Example 3: “What exactly made Weisberg an expert on the assassination? When he claimed that “expert marksmen could never make the shot” that Oswald did he jumped the shark, as marksmen were making the same kind of shots and being filmed doing so, even as early as 1964 on “CBS Reports”.” A purportedly substantive comment.
Let’s see the cites that support the second sentence. In fact, every reconstruction has used EXPERTS and not one reconstruction has employed a follow-up car with four standing SS agents.
Conclusion: Photon’s purpose here is to disrupt.
Jonathan,
“Conclusion: Photon’s purpose here is to disrupt.”
I would tend to agree with that statement. I have yet to see him introduce any new material, as you and I have done. Instead, his entire posting record is one of reactionary attacks, and not even very good ones at that. I wonder: is he the best that the lone-nutters can throw at us skeptics? If so, I think it’s ‘game over’ for their cause, to protect Lyndon Johnson and the status quo fairy tale of the Warren Commission from any doubters.
Jonathan,
Concerning Boswell’s ARRB testimony, Boswell didn’t say the large wound was on the back of the skull. When he spoke of “10 x 17 cm missing” he referenced the original autopsy record showing those numbers marked on the TOP of the skull:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=582&relPageId=2
Boswell’s testimony (searchable version):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
Jean
Photon’s comments are always thought provoking, insightful and helpful. I am however curious as to what his, or her, apparently wide ranging qualifications are given his, or her, dismissal of anything but the “lone nut” theory. I think it would add credibility to his, or her, opinions given his, or her, frequent requests for the same information from other posters. I am new here so please forgive me if that information has been previously shared. I admire his, or her, sense of certainty, but am wondering why he, or she, would frequent this site, if he, or she, has already resolved this issue in his, or her, mind. Why not write a book and enlighten the world?
Harold Weisberg’s take on Manchester: ” Were Pulitzer or Nobel Prizes to be awarded for conspicuous inaccuracy, Manchester would be without peer.” Post Mortem, p. 239
AND
“Of what he reports, the one thing that can be accepted without qualm is that the President was dead.” p. 241
What exactly made Weisberg an expert on the assassination? When he claimed that “expert marksmen could never make the shot” that Oswald did he jumped the shark, as marksmen were making the same kind of shots and being filmed doing so, even as early as 1964 on “CBS Reports”.
Can you please provide a link to the “marksmen making the same shots” that Oswald was required to do? I’d love to see that.
Weisberg wasn’t jumping the shark. In his first book he cited from the official record. The Marine Commandant determined LHO was a rather poor shot. The Master NRA riflemen for the Commission tests failed to duplicate what was attributed to Oswald. And they shot at a stationary target.
Nice try.
What Marine commandant? No commandant would ever refer to another Marine as “a rather poor shot” because NO Marine is a “rather poor shot” -except musicians, who don’t go to boot camp. Obviously you never heard of “every Marine a rifleman”
Obviously you have never been to. a Marine range. What Master NRA riflemen? Do you think that the NRA employs “master riflemen”? The fact is that “CBS Reports” in 1964 duplicated the same 2 out of 3 hits to a moving target at the same distance as the shots from the TSBD, in less time than we now know Oswald had. Nice try.
Actually CBS broadcast in June, 1967 the moving target tests done on a range in Maryland. Multiple shooters with virtually no experience with the Carcano rifle got off 3 shots with 1 or 2 hits in 5.6 sec or less- the Warren timeline. As we now know the timeline was closer to 8 sec from first shot to last , the tests are even more confirmatory that Oswald (who according to 2 witness on the 1964 broadcast was seen to be firing the rifle rapidly at a range outside of Dallas) would have been able to perform the deed. Who are you going to believe- the “experts” or your lyin’ eyes?
“Who are you going to believe- the “experts” or your lyin’ eyes?”
Good question! Now please explain again for us honest folks how the “magic bullet” managed to do all that damage to Kennedy and Connelly, yet remain relatively pristine and leave fragments in Connelly’s arm? Oh, r-i–g-g-h-h-t—–Connelly must have been lying too. You know, tiny particle, that’s a LOT of liars, plus a fantasy ‘magic’ bullet you’re asking us to beLIEve in. Care to comment?
That’s not exactly true. You need to fact check. The Marine Corps determined Oswald to be a sharpshooter.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/anderson1.htm
C’mon, Paul. The material to which you link shows LHO scored (with an M-1) 212 (sharpshooter) in 1956 and 191 (marksman) in 1959.
I thank you for providing the link but not for your shading of the information it provides.
Unfortunately, Mr. Manchester’s summary has been repeated and endorsed by many others. The reason that many continue to look for other answers is that so many of the right questions were never asked; so many of the good leads not run down; so many of the documents are still locked up.
Ours is an honest quest. All legitimate questions deserve an answer. We owe nothing less to President Kennedy and his legacy.
If Mr. Manchester is correct then release the original manuscript: The Death Of Lancer.
One of those who repeated and endorsed Manchester’s summary was Presidential historian Robert Dallek-and he did so with a SMILE…much the same way LBJ smiled at Rep. Thomas’ wink upon being sworn in as POTUS. But I never could figure out why Dallek smiled as he said that(“….a conspiracy would do that nicely”. To me, Dallek is either smiling cynically at conspiracy theorists because such proof has’t yet come out, or smiling because it was obvious that there was a conspiracy.
The Manchester quote is out of context: he preceded the statement with: “Those who desperately want to believe that President Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy have my sympathy. I share their yearning. To employ what may seem an odd metaphor, there is an esthetic principle here. If you put six million dead Jews on one side of a scale and on the other side put the Nazi regime – the greatest gang of criminals ever to seize control of a modern state – you have a rough balance: greatest crime, greatest criminals.
Borrowing from Manchester’s odd metaphor: “if you put the leader of the free world on one side of the scale and on the other side a fascist leaning cabal made up of some of the nations most powerful – the greatest gang of criminals ever to seize control of a democratic union – you have a rough balance: greatest crime, greatest criminals.
Jeff,
photon is not honest.
“Manchester was a sycophant.” And I’m dishonest?
photon,
Your posts are full of non-sequiturs.
But that’s OK. You are on a mission. Tell your masters you’ve failed.
Doug Horne’s medical backround?
William Manchester a sycophant?
Please enlighten us.
A Portrait of photon
First, his name. It is meant to overwhelm. What is a photon?
Second: his approach. He does not use syllogism. He uses a spear. A spear meant to disrupt.
‘Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatever of that.” — Wm. Manchester
There is no “evidence” whatsoever in the matter of the JFK assassination. Only facts.
Why no “evidence”? “Evidence” is by definition that which is admitted into evidence at trial by the judge pursuant to the rules of evidence. The Warren Commission conducted no trial.
Example: Marina testifies under oath to the W.C. she took photos of Oswald with his rifle. Her testimony is NOT evidence. Her testimony to the W.C. would NOT be admissible in a trial of LHO for the murder of JFK for the purpose of proving Oswald possessed a rifle. It would be rejected as hearsay. Marina would have to come into court; testify against LHO (if that were permissible); and be subject to cross-examination in order for any statement by her about LHO posing with a rifle to be admissible in LHO’s murder trial.
Example: The alleged murder weapon allegedly was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Not evidence. And probably never could become evidence. Big paper trail problems with rifle; lots of initial confusion as to the rifle. Oswald’s defense attorney would have a field day.
So we need to get away from the notion of evidence. We need to focus our efforts on identifying and interpreting historical fact. We need to watch our language, because language dictates logic.
And yet you claim that jury trials in this country find defendents “innocent”.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at; please explain.
But you have been admitted to practice law in Illinois,Indiana,New York and Connecticut. Is evidence uniquely a legal term?
Evidence occupies an exalted place in the law. It is tested by rules of evidence, which deal with such matters as hearsay and relevance.
Snipe at me, photon. I’m an old guy. Not quite broken down. Just 18 years-old when JFK was assassinated.
You do not seek the truth. That is my worst condemnation.
Is claiming that Doug Horne is a expert on autopsy reports seeking the truth?
Expanding on Chris Matthews’ extraordinarily convincing good guy/bad guy allusion, I can’t imagine Bugs Bunny being assassinated by anyone other than Elmer Fudd. Therefore I just don’t see the possibility of a conspiracy in JFK’s murder.
And yet you will accept Mickey Mouse conspiracy theories.
Isn’t it “Mickey Mouse” to look for example at the statements made by the doctors at Parkland and NOT think there was a conspiracy?
No, because retrospective medical studies published in reputable medical sources such as the Journal of the American Medical Association have shown that initial interpretations of firearms wounds by emergency medical personnel are often inaccurate and have little ballistic predictive value.
Besides, if they never turned JFK over how can you say they even knew how many wounds he had?
photon,
Sorry to barge in, but you really need to take a good look at Thornton Boswell’s 1996 testimony to the ARRB.
In response to questioning by Jeremy Gunn re Boswell’s face-page drawings of JFK’s wounds, Boswell openly says his notation “10 x 17 cm missing” on the back of the skull meant skull bone was missing. He said the overlaying scalp flap was intact and when laid down covered the hole.
10 x 17 cm, photon. That’s roughly a 5 inch by 8.5 inch deficit. In the rear of the skull; according to the autopsist who marked the size and location of JFK’s wounds on the night of 11/22/63. That’s no entry wound made by a copper-jacketed bullet traveling at roughly 2,000 fps.
Your mileage may vary. But a reasonable interpretation of Boswell’s testimony — Doug Horne’s interpretation, for example, is that this large posterior deficit is an exit wound.
From a legal standpoint, an autopsy report, once verified in court, is the BEST EVIDENCE of cause of death and related matters.
And Doug Horne went to what Medical School?
And where did he do his Pathology residency?
And what exactly makes him an expert on any aspect of an autopsy?
Photon,
SERIOUSLY??
Dr. Charles Crenshaw handled Kennedy in Trauma Room 1. He was trained in treating gunshot wounds, and he saw a lot of them in Dallas prior to that day. He said he was positive that there were two gunshot wounds where the President was shot in the front: the neck wound, which was an ENTRY WOUND, and the forehead, WHICH WAS ALSO AN ENTRY WOUND. He saw the back of Kennedy’s head blasted out. I don’t think you can get any clearer than that. Your argument just doesn’t hold water.
Have you actually read the autopsy report?
Is a surgical resident more qualified to judge the ballistic characteristics of wounds in less than 20 minutes than a board-certified pathologist at one of the most prestigious teaching hospitals in the United States prforming a formal autopsy, assisted by one of the foremost experts in missle wounds in the world? And precisely what training in neurosurgery and bullet wound trauma did he have at that stage of his training? Precisely when did he reach the trauma room and how closely (and how long) did he examine the President?
Photon,
Listen to Dr. Crenshaw yourself. He put the President into the casket, he attended to him prior to that.
JSA,then why did he tell the New York Times that his “role in the Kennedy case was minor” (May 26,1992)- as would be expected for a fourth-year surgical resident? What was his perception of the back wound? How could a resident attend to anybody? Do you know what an Attending Physician is? How could he have put JFK in the casket when the Attending Physicians left before it arrived and as a resident he would have accompanied his attending surgeon? Do you know how unlikely it would be for any doctor to put any body in a casket in an ER, let alone a surgical resident? Why didn’t anybody else see him put JFK in the casket?
I read the NYTimes article. He said Gary Shaw, one of the co-authors of his book, took some liberties with what Crenshaw told him. But the main point, that he saw the body and remembered the tracheotomy, as well as seeing the back of the president’s head blown out, front intact with a small entrance wound (the same place Dr. Perry pointed to at the press conference that day), remain intact. What you’re trying to do is smear Dr. Crenshaw’s credibility, but your attacks are over nuance and not substance. The fact is, Crenshaw was there in the ER, there are other doctors (such as Perry and Baxter who corroborated), and he saw the head and throat wounds, but not the back wound, which was another shot that hit the President, in addition to those in the throat and head from the front. The autopsy was performed under intense pressure, the body was in a cheap body bag and not the casket from the plane (you can read David Lifton’s very thorough analysis on this).
I’m fairly well grounded and skeptical, and don’t get sucked into most conspiracy theories. The Kennedy assassination however has so many holes and weaknesses to the official version (like listening to the lies that George McClellan tried to tell Lincoln, to weasel his way out of taking the responsibility for his failure in the 1862 Peninsula campaign for ex.), that I’m inclined to see the Warren Commission as a hastily constructed whitewash, politically motivated, propped up with lies, and released in time prior to the 1964 election, so that Lyndon Johnson wouldn’t have it hanging over him during the campaign. You, Photon, can believe in the single bullet, Lyndon Johnson and Allen Dulles’ version. I’ll go with the skeptical and honest search for what REALLY happened, without fear of the truth and where it leads.
The body was never in a body bag.
So McClellan was in on it, too?
Yes, the body was brought in a body bag. Lifton interviewed witnesses who said so. So you’re now saying that all of these witnesses are lying? That’s a lot of lies, all made independently.
Phot, you remind me of the people who cited cigarette industry “studies” to keep themselves in denial about lung cancer. You can deny the inconvenient facts and information all you want, but the only person you will be fooling will be yourself.
JFK’s body was never placed in a body bag.
It was placed in a mattress cover.
If you believe Lifton you have to believe that Godfrey McHugh and Jackie Kennedy conspired to substitute the body since one of them was with the body continuously from the Parkland ER to the White House. That is not credible. As I recall McHugh called Lifton’s theory “idiotic”. His enlisted witnesses actually had limited exposure to the body and one lied about removing the body from the casket when actually he never came in contact with it.
Wrong again. The casket was left unattended when Jackie was up in the plane watching the usurper take the oath of office. Lifton did a very good job of showing how the body was taken from the plane at Andrews to Walter Reed and then to Bethesda. Autopsy photos went missing, pathologists were ordered by the military not to look at certain things, and the primary evidence of the body was altered before it was locked away under an “eternal flame.” I’m not stating that the doctors at Parkland knew of an entry wound in Kennedy’s back (shot from the back, which it was). I’m saying that they saw the two front entrance wounds, one in his right temple, blowing out the back of his head, and the second entering his throat, just above his necktie. Even Connolly stated that the bullet that hit him, the so-called “magic bullet” (which is a fantasy) left more fragments in his arm than could be accounted for. Your argument is so full of holes only a Lyndon Johnson-worshipping buffoon could take it seriously
BGEN Godfrey McHugh. Are you implying that he switched the body?
Kennedy’s body could also have been switched to another casket at Parkland, as it was there for over an hour, then had to be removed at gunpoint by the SS. There were TWO caskets at Andrews AFB. Military chatter aboard Air Force One made repeated reference to the need for a forklift to be brought to the right front of the plane, where the “first lady” would depart. But Mrs. Kennedy, accompanied by RFK at this point, who had bounded onto the plane to meet her, left the plane with everyone else from the left rear. More stunning was the HSCA’s suppressed interview with Richard Lipsey, the military aide put in charge of moving the body from Andrews Air Force Base to Bethesda. In 1978, Lipsey told HSCA interviewers that there had been two hearses and two caskets. According to Lipsey, Jackie Kennedy accompanied an empty casket into the front of the hospital, while “the one with the body in it went around to the back, where the morgue was.”
During coffee, the talk turned to President Kennedy, and Johnson expressed his belief that the assassination in Dallas had been part of a conspiracy. “I never believed that Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger.”
– Leo Janos, Atlantic Monthly, July 1973
LBJ admitted that he “never” believed Oswald acted alone. Remember that the next time you see the iconic photo of Warren handing over the Report to LBJ, with the sage commissioners standing around. Russel (LBJ’s mentor), Cooper and Boggs reportedly dissented privately from the Report’s conclusions.
Here is a snarky little jibe often used by people who only believe *government approved* conspiracy theories:
“Conspiracy theories are a perfect mix of ignorance & vanity allowing the small minded to feel superior to and dismissive of the informed.”
Well, it is good to see you admit it
Chris Matthews, ‘Hardball’, Nov. 22, 2011: Interview with Max Holland, re: National Geographic documentary.
Sorry, I couldn’t make the word limit. The last paragraph demonstrates why revered historian Matthews should be taken very seriously.
“Why — is it possible that one of the reasons why the American
liberals don’t accept this, a lot of them over the years, like Oliver Stone, they just can’t stand the idea that a hard lefty killed a guy they loved?”
And . . . .
“I think I understand why people are so open to the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the president’s lone killer. It’s hard to imagine such a small person being responsible for the loss of such a beloved and important person.
We’ve been taught through years of Shakespeare and lesser dramas to expect a serious villain as the match for our heroes. Othello had Iago. Sherlock Holmes had Dr. Moreau. The Lone Ranger had the Cavendish gang. And Superman, of course, had Lex Luthor. I could go on.”
There’s also a very human tendency to make ‘the enemy of my enemy my friend’. I have to remind myself however that during WW2, just because the Soviet Union (Stalin) was fighting the Nazi regime in the USSR and then Eastern Europe, they ultimately were not our friends. Stalin was no “Uncle Joe good guy” in any sense of the word. The same goes domestically here at home, regarding power and its users/abusers.
…and Chris Matthews’ nemesis is the truth.
Arthur Schlesinger once told William Manchester that his book “Death of a President” sent a subliminal message that Lyndon Johnson murdered John Kennedy. Jackie Kennedy sued Manchester and made him remove hundreds of pages of his original manuscipt, with much of the material unfavorable to LBJ.
The Kennedys were not ready to take on LBJ in the court of public opinion in a direct manner. Read the “Dark Side of Lyndon Johnson” by Joachim Joesten which has now been republished.
http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Lyndon-Baines-Johnson/dp/1771520094/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366385131&sr=8-1&keywords=the+dark+side+of+lyndon+johnson
Joesten:
“William Manchester came closer than most other people to seeing through the benign public relations mask of Lyndon Johnson, but one wouldn’t know it from scanning the pages of ‘The Death of a President’. If there are two persons in the world who have really come to know Johnson at close quarters, outside of his own family, they are Robert and Jacqueline Kennedy. Manchester interviewed both of them at length and they told him, without mincing their words, what they thought of That Man in the White House. But when Manchester, having faithfully recorded everything the Kennedys had told him, rushed into print with his story, years ahead of schedule, they both got panicky and practically forced him to ‘revise’ his story out of recognition. Edward J. Epstein, the author of Inquest, somehow managed to get hold of a copy of the original, unedited manuscript of the Manchester book, then entitled ‘Death of a Lancer’, and revealed in the July issue 1967 of Commentary, some of its contents. In his original draft, Manchester, it seems, made some very pungent remarks about Lyndon Johnson whom he described, among other things, as a ‘chameleon who constantly changes loyalties’; ‘a capon’ and ‘a crafty schemer who has a gaunt, hunted look about him’. He also pictured Johnson as ‘a full-fledged hypomaniac’ and ‘the crafty seducer with six nimble hands who can persuade a woman to surrender her favors in the course of a long conversation confined to obscure words. No woman, even a lady, can discern his intentions until the critical moment’. By far the most interesting aspect of this matter, however, is Epstein’s contention that Manchester’s original theme, which gave unity to his book, was ‘the notion that Johnson, the successor, was somehow responsible for the death-of his predecessor’. Several quotations from the original draft bear out this contention. At one point, the Lancer version states, ‘The shattering fact of the assassination is that a Texas murder has made a Texan President’. At another, Kenneth O’Donnell, Kennedy’s appointments secretary, is quoted as exclaiming ‘They did it. I always knew they’d do it. You couldn’t expect anything else from them. They finally made it’. Then Manchester comments: ‘He didn’t specify who “they” were. It was unnecessary. They were Texans, Johnsonians’. But what is one to think of an author who allows his most important work not only to be castrated, but to be turned completely upside down by a publisher more committed to the dictates of expediency than to the search for historical truth?”
I agree Robert and your comments recently about the media giving LBJ a pass, and full benefit of the doubt on the Warren Commission because of civil rights being the big issue in the country at the time, especially among the liberal elite is brilliant and right on.
THIS IS PURE SPECULATION (I feel I have to make sure to preface with this before going on here), but wouldn’t it be ironic if Lyndon Johnson, beloved by liberals for his civil rights legislation legacy, had either known or aided in the assassination of Martin Luther King, in 1968? The reason I wonder is, I heard first hand of the legal case from one of the lawyers involved in the retrial of James Earl Ray, where a jury found him innocent of the crime of shooting King. The King family agreed with this jury! There is good reason to suspect the official story of that killing, and to suspect that the FBI and possibly CIA, and through extension (again my speculation), LBJ, who was very close to J. Edgar Hoover.
I wonder how people would feel about LBJ if it turned out that he not only got us into a land war in Vietnam, but also killed the famed civil rights leader? I think any “liberal legacy” he once had would be complete TOAST. For the record, I already suspect that he was involved in the JFK assassination, and especially in the cover up.
Jeff, that is one of the most important points I make in JFK research: “civil rights” was LBJ’s keep-out-of-jail card for the JFK assassination.
LBJ was already taking care of war hawks, Texas oil, himself and Hoover’s personal situations. LBJ had to give the liberals something big: civil rights.
Don’t forget LBJ also put forward a plan to eradicate poverty, which was huge. Just because the war sucked most of the money out of his Great Society initiatives didn’t mean he wasn’t sincere about fighting poverty and hunger in this country. I don’t like Lyndon, but just because I don’t like him doesn’t make me blind to his goals and to his accomplishments. People are complicated. See my ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ statement below.
Per Mr. Morley:
1) are no longer than Manchester’s quote (ie, 61 words).
Manchester was a sycophant. He had written an overly laudatory book about JFK, “Portrait of a President,” in 1961. Jackie and RFK chose him to write the “official” story, figuring he’d maintain the proper lens. Although his first draft strayed from the desired path, he ultimately got the story “right.”
So Jackie and RFK were in on the conspiracy?
Jackie was upset that the first draft harshly portrayed LBJ and got Manchester to tone down his portrayal. Jackie, still upset, tried to stop publication of the book but was unsuccessful.
The full story is laid out in an October 2009 VANITY FAIR article, “A Clash of Camelots”, by Sam Kashner.
Gore Vidal called Manchester’s book “the best historical novel ever written.”
Photon – RFK and Jackie both hated Lyndon Johnson. I think they highly suspected him in the JFK assassination, certainly they knew he covered up the murder of JFK.
However, the Kennedys were not ready to take LBJ on in the court of public opinion; they were much more concerned about Robert Kennedy’s political career & the revelation of their savage thoughts about LBJ at that time would not have helped RFK.
I personally think they should have gone public and said what needed to be said; they did not because they did not want to be marginalized. I think their choice was a mistake.
I agree with you, Robert. If Robert Kennedy had figured out that he was probably a ‘marked man’ and no way in hell was he going to live through a presidential campaign and sit in the White House, he should have gone public with his assumptions, maybe with a carefully worded statement of what he knew coming out of New Orleans and Dallas, from his own personal team looking into things. He certainly cast fate to the winds when he was campaigning, in 1968, walking into crowds without enough protection, riding through cities on that campaign in open cars, etc. So it’s not completely out of character to imagine him going public. On the other hand, the Kennedy family still thought they had a political future on the national stage in the sixties, so I guess because of that they kept their suspicions to themselves. It would have been healthier for our republic if we had been forced into this debate. Frank Church tried in the seventies, but he lacked the power and figure status that Robert Kennedy had to make a major impact.
William Sullivan, the #4 man at the FBI, describes a high level FBI meeting in spring, 1968. “Hoover was not present, and Clyde Tolson [FBI #2 and Hoover’s “friend”] was presiding in his absence. I was one of eight men who heard Tolson respond to the mention of [RFK’s] name by saying, ‘I hope someone shoots and kills the son of a bitch.’ This was five or six weeks before the California primary.”
“The truly frightening thing … as Mr. Posner recounts it, is not the notion that vast, murky forces somehow rule our lives, but that not even the greatest among us is safe when madness and sheer chance happen to converge.”
From: The Most Durable Assassination Theory: Oswald Did It Alone
By Geoffrey C. Ward
New York Times
Published: November 21, 1993